Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
As we have a dedicated SpaceX thread, perhaps we should have a dedicated one to cover the (slow) progress of the Space Launch System (SLS).
On June 28, Orbital ATK will be conducting the second ground test of the enhanced Solid Rocket Booster that will be part of the SLS.
http://www.orbitalatk.com/rocket-test/
On June 28, Orbital ATK will be conducting the second ground test of the enhanced Solid Rocket Booster that will be part of the SLS.
http://www.orbitalatk.com/rocket-test/
What is there positive to say about it?
Its designed by congress purely for pork, using reusable rocket engines once, they dont have a mission for it, they are though man rating it which seems crazy.
Its going to launch 70 tons to orbit for $4bn+ a shot compared to 55tons for a f9h at about $200million.
And for that price they are reusing most of the space shuttle program (boosters, engines etc).
it seems a significant step back from Saturn V times...
Its designed by congress purely for pork, using reusable rocket engines once, they dont have a mission for it, they are though man rating it which seems crazy.
Its going to launch 70 tons to orbit for $4bn+ a shot compared to 55tons for a f9h at about $200million.
And for that price they are reusing most of the space shuttle program (boosters, engines etc).
it seems a significant step back from Saturn V times...
I'm intrigued whether the original 53 Tonne estimate for F9H will be revised upwards (as they have done with Falcon 9 when they improved parts, reduced margins, e.g. the Merlin 1A through D engines, the cryogenic propellants). I am equally wondering if the SLS 70 tonne estimate will be revised downwards when they start moving from paper to metal.
What do you reckon the chances are they will meet in the middle?
What do you reckon the chances are they will meet in the middle?
NASA (or whoever) needs a 100 ton to LEO capability as soon as possible. It's what was possible with the Saturn V and if we intend to make any practical advances on our capabilities within the Solar System, this is what is needed.
That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
Eric Mc said:
NASA (or whoever) needs a 100 ton to LEO capability as soon as possible. It's what was possible with the Saturn V and if we intend to make any practical advances on our capabilities within the Solar System, this is what is needed.
That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
FWIW Eric, I'm interested :-)That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
Clearly (eventually) someone will go back to the Moon, to Asteroids and Mars. I'm sure its "When" not "If" as such yes- NASA needs access to heavy lifting 100+tonnes but I share the skeptical view that NASA should build their own dedicated launcher.
I also see the political question, it would seem that the private sector is catching up with what the US government can do so quickly that by the time NASA have an SLS ready to fly Elon will have laid everything to waste with the specs of the MCT/FalconXX (whatever they call the son of Falcon Heavy) by then 100t to LEO will seem like a joke if SpaceX have a bi-annual 200t cargo ferry running to Mars! (if rumours be believed) It sounds stupendously ridiculous but they have done everything else they've claimed so far/eventually.
I certainly don't think NASA's days are over, their robotic Mars missions- Cassini, New Horizons and soon Juno are truly reshaping how we see the solar system and Hubble/James Webb have/will redefine everything outside it, no one else has even come close to their expedition work.
The SLS will be terrific but I wonder if the old-school design can survive the bean counters?
Lastly from a technical standpoint- the SLS looks like a parts bin special, albeit all new parts but the choice to leverage as much existing knowledge as possible has surely constrained the design? I wonder if granted a clean sheet design and budget if/what NASA would do differently?
I think SpaceX are more limited by the second stage for anything heavier or to higher orbit. They are developing something new there with the DOD but nothing is known about it. Outside of that I am not sure commercially its worth them developing anything with more capability for f9/f9h as the competition(D4H) only flies every other year anyhow.
SLS should work up to 110 tons or something in a later version so its going to be by far the best option for a single large delivery to orbit, at least until the BFR comes along.
SLS should work up to 110 tons or something in a later version so its going to be by far the best option for a single large delivery to orbit, at least until the BFR comes along.
I think the good thing about the SLS is that it revives a lost capability. Once they have it, all sorts of projects can be supported by it - both manned and unmanned.
The fact that it might make use of previous era technology is not a big issue as far as I am concerned. All the best and most reliable rocket systems are based on evolved older technologies. That's the path the Russians have followed fairly successfully.
The fact that it might make use of previous era technology is not a big issue as far as I am concerned. All the best and most reliable rocket systems are based on evolved older technologies. That's the path the Russians have followed fairly successfully.
I always wondered about this (the need for high capacity launches) when the critics decried the Sea Dragon. A major plank in the argument against was that being able to loft 500 tonnes was pointless as it would mean a single launch would cover the entire years' worth of payold requirements and thus the Sea Dragon wouldn't have a high enough launch rate to achieve economies of scale.
Seemed to totally miss the way industries grow once the constraints are lifted (e.g. the 747 making air travel mass-market), but then I am not an economist!
Seemed to totally miss the way industries grow once the constraints are lifted (e.g. the 747 making air travel mass-market), but then I am not an economist!
Eric Mc said:
I think Sea Dragon would have been pretty untenable in the modern world - mainly because of its environmental impact. It was just TOO massive. I think we won't see any launchers that will exceed the capability of the proposed (but never built) Nova.
Really? To marine life I suspect (not having performed any analysis, but having read some) that it would be about as disruptive as a large submarine passing by. The navy has methods to clear a buffer zone prior to launching a Trident or similar. Of course, that assumes you don't just use a convenient lagoon instead!
Or was it other environmental impact?
The first stage of Sea Dragon had a proposed thrust of 80 million pounds of thrust (over 10 times more powerful than a Saturn V). The shock waves emanating from the rocket would literally kill any sea or bird life for a number of miles around the launch position. Indeed, the whole point of the sea launch idea was because launching such a huge rocket from land would have such a massive impact on the surrounding areas.
And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
Eric Mc said:
The first stage of Sea Dragon had a proposed thrust of 80 million pounds of thrust (over 10 times more powerful than a Saturn V). The shock waves emanating from the rocket would literally kill any sea or bird life for a number of miles around the launch position. Indeed, the whole point of the sea launch idea was because launching such a huge rocket from land would have such a massive impact on the surrounding areas.
And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
I think that the study showed it would create a gas bubble in the water which would turn the surrounding water into a sound-absorbing foam, so as long as a few square miles was cleared out with some active sonar pings the marine life would probably be largely safe. Particularly if you launched from somewhere with minimal life anyway - there are dead zones conveniently along the equator: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-ocean-dead-zones-disa...And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
Do the military still drop depth charges on exercise? Or set off those massive torpedoes the russians used to have (big enough to take out a Typhoon class double-hulled sub?)
Not sure about the bird life, but probably not going to be that much worse than an airliner and there aren't that many birds out in the middle of the ocean surely? I haven't seen pigeons fitted with long range tanks or eagles carrying out air-to-air refuelling
Sea Dragon is nice, But the original Project Orion needs to be built instead of this pared down version of orion. It would be awesome to see!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nucle...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nucle...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff